ďItís a disappointment obviously that as far as we can tell this is the first sports league in history who sued to not plays its game,Ē Smith told reporters after Mondayís ruling. ďCongratulations.Ē

The players need to fire De Smith. They would be better off anyone else at this point. make the owners happy and get rid of him and find someone who will represent them better and hopefully a deal can be struck.

Quote:

The league hasnít sued anyone. The league wants to impose economic pressure on the players via a lockout, and the players decertified and filed an antitrust lawsuit in the hopes of blocking the lockout. Todayís ruling that the lockout wonít be lifted pending resolution of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit hardly represents the NFL suing to not plays its game.

Am I confused or is this writer? The owners didn't lockout until AFTER the players decertified. and basically done to protect themselves from pending law suits by the players. But I agree with the last statement that it hardly represents the NFL suing to not play games. Each is trying to get the upper hand. The players decertified in hopes it would put pressure on the owners. The owners locked out because of it. The players filed a law suit claiming the owners illegally locked out, and the owners filed suit claiming the players illegally decertified. In any event the owners might have a point. If the first act is illegal (the decertifying) then the rest is moot. If it's not illegal then the owners are in the wrong and would need to lift the lockout. Yes/No?

What I don't get is the media has laid out the options for each side if players do this the owners will do that, if the owners do this the players will do that. But each time at the end of the scenario's the owners seem to have the upper hand. So why jump through all these hoops in hopes that what? the owners will slip up and throw an agreement at you that you love? They would be better off taking Goodall out to a bar and getting him completely drunk and on tape agreeing to what they want.

SBXVII- If the NFL owners did not get money back from the players in a new CBA deal the owners were going lock out the players anyway. The NBA owners are heading the same direction. You can see that right?
They will agree to a new deal at some point.
In the mean time the supposed "financially hurt NFL owners" greed continues:

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially

The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

As to the TV contracts, I haven't been following that issue to closely. As such, not going to contest the issue at this point.

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

As a football fan, I hate this lock-out becasue it is interfering with my enjoyment of the football offseason and all the intrigue of roster shaping.

However, if I owned an NFL team, I would have locked the players out also. It is a business decison that should not bend to the will of the fan base (myself included as I wish it would end today). Whatever the resolution, it will affect revenues and profit margins of these clubs for years to come. Locking out the players may seem a harsh negotiation tactic, but may prove to be an effective one. Also, fast forward 5 or 10 years from now....same owners, different players. You have got to protect your future bottom line in business, even if it means alienating your current work force.

Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.

__________________"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG

rpiotr01 says:
May 17, 2011 2:46 PM
Players are too emotional and competitive, which is why theyíre worthless in the process of collective bargaining. It generally makes sense to turn negotiations over to lawyers, but in this case they chose the wrong kind of lawyers. Both Smith and Kessler are litigators Ė their world view is win or lose, no area in between. In their practices, winning meant their client might keep everything, while losing meant they might go out of business or go to jail.

They should have hired corporate lawyers instead. These people are used to negotiating deals between two parties interested in making a deal. Of course they fight for the best deal possible, but at the end of the day they know theyíre there to make a deal happen, not to prevent one.

The fact that the players hired these two goons tells you everything. It was a mistake. No one on their side is emotionally capable of making a deal. They just canít see the situation as anything other than black or white. Itís a shame, because there is an opportunity to do something right now.

They need to get their heads out of the litigation cloud and make a counter offer. Go back and forth, thatís how these things work. Itís like buying a car, you donít get insulted when the dealer asks you to pay MSRP, you make an offer until you get something you can live with. Just please, try, thatís all anyone is asking

__________________"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

Wow, great counter offer players. Way to go, you sure you guys have never negotiated before because you guys are awesome at it, and by awesome I mean down right horrible, so bad that a 4th grader could do better, so bad that the Players would be better off sending a giraffe to negotiate on their behalf, or a Saint Bernard, everyone likes Saint Bernards.

The main problem here is trust. There is none, and it's hard to bargain or compromise when there isn't trust.

This is what should happen. The owners should open their books to a third party financial firm to allow them to review the books. They could make it so that other owner's (or the public) wouldn't have access to them. That way the players can then trust the owners in this negotiation and proceed from there. It's hard to ask somebody to "trust me" over a billion dollars when in fact many of these guys are notorious for making money in shady ways.

Owners back the players into a corner. You can't expect anything less.

1) Opted out of CBA
2) Tried to illegally gain money from TV contracts during lockout to give them all the leverage financially

The people that need to show the good faith moves are the guys who started this whole shit.

1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.

So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.

2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.

NC_Skins, at the risk of sounding like Roger Goodell, the only meaningful issue at play here is the principle of collective bargaining. If the player's decertification was anything more than a leverage tactic, this would be be debatable. However, it isn't. One side is delaying the process of collective bargaining in deference to attempting to change the puzzle as to where the leverage lies.

It's going to come back to collective bargaining at the end, whether the players get more of, or give up a greater share of the leverage. We're spending months of the offseason using the legal system to change the negotiating environment, instead of hammering this deal out in March as both sides could have. This is not disputable. The players didn't accept the owners deal back in March because they knew/thought/believed they could get a better one in July, after the courts decided on specific points.

Which is completely in their right as the players. But the desire to then spin the lockout as the action of the owners is nothing more than intellectually dishonest posturing by the NFLPA. And I think Goodell, and the owners, are going to eventually win the war of public opinion because De Smith is trying to do what's best for the players (and I think he's succeeding on that point), but he's also lying to NFL fans in the process about who is responsible for what. I mean, his job is only to hold out long enough to get the best deal possible for the players. So if he has to lie to do his job and say the NFL is suing to not play games, then he has to lie. But we live in the information age. And he's underestimating, in my opinion, the ease of the ability of NFL fans to get information that contradicts what he's saying.

De Smith may ultimately be win in the end, but I don't think he'll ever be viewed favorably by NFL fans.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

The players agreed to a CBA that allowed the owners to opt out without any justification necessary. I am not sure how the owners exercising a negotiated contract right is in any way improper. Show me where, any where, in the CBA agreed to by the players, that the owners are required to show cause, injury or other justification prior to exercising their negotiated rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Loopholes I get. I got no problem with legal loopholes. Hell, I love'em. The players, however, aren't taking advantage of a loophole. Read the CBA - (see CRed's post earlier). The players union, essentially, agreed not to decertify as a means of circumventing federal labor laws. Despite this agreement, they decertify with the specific intent of filing suit and attempting to gain leverage by intentionally circumventing their earlier agreement and established labor law.

This is not a "loophole", it is a flagrant violation of the CBA and federal labor laws. This was the basis of the NFL's opposition to the District Court's injunction and, according to the 8th Circuit when it overruled the lower court, is a claim upon which the NFL is likely to succeed.

Had the players followed the CBA and allowed the matter to proceed through the NLRB or other applicable (as agreed by the players union), I would have no beef with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Nothing technically legal about it? I am assuming your using hyperbole, but, if not, the sheer unbridled ignorance of this remark makes a response impossible. Short answer: The NFL and its teams are legal entities that can choose to do business anyway they so choose subject to the appropriate lablor laws which the players availed themselves of by forming a union.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.

Their decertification, I suggest, was illegal and forced the owners hand into a lockout. Ultimately, the courts will make a determination as to the decertification's legality but, based on the 8th Circuit's recent ruling, it is likely they will find the decertification illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything illegal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Let's get something straight - I think the owner's voided the CBA out of greed, they were unhappy with their cut and wanted to increase it. This does not mean what they did was illegal or a violation of the CBA or applicable law. It is legal to be greedy.

The players actions also demonstrate a level of greed - not nearly as much as the owners. However, in pursuing their perfectly legal greed, the players, IMO (and apparently the 8th Circuit's) are using illegal methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Go look it up. By all accounts, the March 11th proposal met the players demands half way. As I understand it, the most recent proposal is more favorable.

The whole "open the books" point has been vastly overstated. Look, the players should have known that they had no chance of seeing the books because that's what US labor law says. As my mom always says, it doesn't hurt to ask, or demand under the leverage of decertification, but making public the financials was never the sticking point the NFLPA made it.

It would have been a huge win for the NFLPA if they had leveraged the owners into showing the numbers...as far as I know, that may have been an unprecedented labor negotiation victory. But it was also a shot in the dark. And what would have been accomplished by the owners showing the numbers anyway? Are the players going to give up money if the owners are actually losing? No, of course not. The players are going to work off of the last labor deal either way. The financials are irrelevant in this negotiation. The strongest point of leverage that the players have is the public assumption that every NFL franchise is profitable. They don't want any sort of numbers to get in the way of that leverage.

Furthermore, the NFLPA's own website isn't exactly "showing all the data" either:

Their point is in the capped years, players received between 50% and 53% of the NFL revenues (with a salary cap max between 56% and 59% over the same timeframe). Conveniently not listed, the 2010 (or uncapped) figures. Because that information hasn't come in yet. Or doesn't fit the argument they are making. Or something.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.